Do you still believe you have no choice and your brain forces all your actions?
The most important unresolved scientific questions, in my opinion.
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
ZenMode
Well-known member
Of course. Given how our brain works in relation to consciousness, free will is impossible.
We might not even have the type of science or theory of knowledge yet that can shed light on the origin of the big bang, or on what consciousness is and how it emerges from the molecules of brain matter. We might need a radically and completely different type of scientific discipline to address these kind of questions.
People didn't have modern physics in 1492.
We didn't have chemistry in 1650.
We didn't have genetics in 1860.
I think it is presumptuous of us to just assume we currently have developed all the scientific fields & disciplines and theories of knowledge to answer any question we have.
Last edited:
Obtenebrator
Verified User
Good question. Probably unanswerable but a valid question.
Backwards. Complex molecules came out of the way the universe wound up after the BB. If the conditions had been different no such things would exist. This does not in any way imply a "necessity" to existence of any sort.
Very interesting area of study. I've spoken about it on this forum many times and at length. No need to rehash this because you won't accept what the scientists find.
Training of the neural network. Correlate experiences and create a larger model that is this "rich subjective mental experience" of which you speak. When the hardware is gone there is no "rich subjective mental experience" to be had.
Not a great question primarily because it assumes that "life" is somehow a quantum state change from non-life. Early life models include things like the RNA-world hypothesis in which it is conceivable that non-living molecules were able to act as templates and encode output strings of proteins. Even life's penchant for chiral molecules may be related to the non-living inorganic substrates the earliest proto-pre-life stuck to from time to time.
And, at the end of the day all biological life uses plain ol' organic chemistry...just like countless non-living systems utilize.
The change from non-living to living is really pretty shady, IMHO.
And fake intellectuals are TERRIFIED of questioning their own assumptions. They would rather just quote someone else because they, themselves, don't actually understand the questions they think are so deeeeeeeeep.
Yakuda
Verified User
Prove it
Yakuda
Verified User
1a. God willed it
1b. Because it was designed that way. The clear fine tuning almost demands the presence of a mind. Again no one sees a car and thinks, wow look what "nature" made
I don't deny rational agency seems possible.
Someday we might be able to frame the question in different way that leads us to better understanding. Getting the right answers almost always depends on asking the right questions.
Yakuda
Verified User
Possible? In no other area of life, expect this one, would a rational person see something, with as much precision as the universe has and think, wow what a coincidence. It's a conscious decision to deny the obvious.
Last edited:
Your assuming our souped up chimpanzee brains now have all the information and understanding in hand needed to leap to a definitive conclusion.
Yakuda
Verified User
That misses my point entirely while making it at the same time. No one, with a fully functioning brain sees a car and thinks, "nature" made the car or that chance brought all the pieces together to make the car but when it comes to the obvious precision of the universe, some people have no problem chalking it up to "nature" or chance.
Obtenebrator
Verified User
Finding design in nature is extremely difficult. First it would require that you have an actually designed life form to compare it with. But that aside I take exception to your suggestion that chemistry is simply "random". Actually it's not quite like that.
Yes, there is a component of randomness in any given reaction: the atoms and molecules need to literally bump into each other in the right orientation and with the right speed to react but that being said chemistry has nice rules to govern how and why it WILL react. The bonds that make up living things are EXACTLY THE SAME AS BONDS MAKING UP NON-LIVING THINGS. Life utilizes ONLY standard normal chemicals found in non-living systems. There is precious little that divides us from the non-living.
Even early "life" may have been little more than RNA molecules stuck to the surface of a rock and acting as a template to coordinate with and cause the reaction of other molecules leading to a crude form of "self-replication". But at the end of the day there are definitely RULES. So it is not purely random.
The reason we find parts of proteins and amino acids in meteorites is because this chemistry is NOT exotic. It is still basic chemistry.
It's perfectly rational to believe the rational intelligibility of the universe is the result of a rational agency. I just have doubts whether it is attributable to a god of Abraham.
There's no question that some scientists, particularly the one who are atheists, were initially uncomfortable with the Big Bang because it implied a moment of creation from nothing. And those people usually try to sweep the fine tuning of the universe under the rug. On the other hand, plenty of scientists think fine tuning is telling us something interesting, and it's a legitimate philosophical and intellectual topic
Obtenebrator
Verified User
So what is the nature of your "rational agency"? Does he/she/it have a personal relationship with his/her/its creation? From whence comes this "rational agency"? Was it born? Was it created? If created, by whom? Another rational agency? A super-rational agency? Who created that super-rational agency?
Is it a "mind'? Does it have "emotions"? Does it have "free will"? Surely it must have free will.
I am genuinely interested in what your "rational agency" hypothesis looks like. If you are willing to discuss your position I'd be interested in knowing more about it.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
I'm pretty sure it was Thor.
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.
Obtenebrator
Verified User
Wow, that's hella-deep. And is exactly what I imagined was your conception: empty of meaning.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
Obtenebrator
Verified User
Yeah, I got it the first time.
Yakuda
Verified User
Why do my doubt it?
Fine tuning does tell us something interesting, that a mind beyond our comprehension exists but instead of being curious they ignore it. I wonder if sometimes they just bring themselves to admit they may have been wrong all this time.
We just don't know the answers to these kinds of questions.
And since we (humans) actually are merely the currently dominant species on a relatively nondescript speck of dust circling a relatively nondescript star (among hundreds of billions of stars) in a relatively nondescript galaxy (among hundreds of billions of galaxies)...
...what makes us think we will ever be able to figure it out?
It may well be a persistent mystery for all of the lifetime of our species.
We just do not know the answers to these kinds of questions.
Doesn't mean we should not search, but keep in mind what we actually are.
And since we (humans) actually are merely the currently dominant species on a relatively nondescript speck of dust circling a relatively nondescript star (among hundreds of billions of stars) in a relatively nondescript galaxy (among hundreds of billions of galaxies)...
...what makes us think we will ever be able to figure it out?
It may well be a persistent mystery for all of the lifetime of our species.
We just do not know the answers to these kinds of questions.
Doesn't mean we should not search, but keep in mind what we actually are.